ScalingStacks

3.2. Alexander capacity [033N]

Original official author HTML, exact retained edition. Historical TeX conversion verdicts remain unchanged. Cited-edition alignment and mathematical self-containment are not assessed.

Complete original source context · Original author HTML

3.2. Alexander capacity

Definition 3.7.

Let KK be a Borel subset of XX. We set

Tω(K):=exp(−supXVK,ω∗).T_{\omega}(K):=\exp(-\sup_{X}V_{K,\omega}^{*}).

This capacity characterizes again P​S​H​(X,ω)PSH(X,\omega)-polar sets:

Proposition 3.8.

Let PP be a Borel subset. Then Tω​(P)=0T_{\omega}(P)=0 iff PP is P​S​H​(X,ω)PSH(X,\omega)-polar. Moreover if φ∈P​S​H​(X,ω)\varphi\in PSH(X,\omega) then

Tω​(φ<−t)≤Cφ​exp⁡(−t),∀t∈ℝ,T_{\omega}(\varphi<-t)\leq C_{\varphi}\exp(-t),\;\forall t\in\mathbb{R},

where Cφ=exp(−supXφ)C_{\varphi}=\exp(-\sup_{X}\varphi).

Proof.

The first assertion follows from theorem 3.2. Let φ∈P​S​H​(X,ω)\varphi\in PSH(X,\omega), t∈ℝt\in\mathbb{R} and set Kt={φ<−t}K_{t}=\{\varphi<-t\}. Then φ+t≤0\varphi+t\leq 0 on KtK_{t} hence φ+t≤VKt,ω∗\varphi+t\leq V_{K_{t},\omega}^{*}. We infer supXφ+t≤supXVKt,ω∗\sup_{X}\varphi+t\leq\sup_{X}V_{K_{t},\omega}^{*} which yields Tω(Kt)≤exp(−supXφ)exp(−t)T_{\omega}(K_{t})\leq\exp(-\sup_{X}\varphi)\exp(-t). ∎

The following proposition is an immediate consequence of proposition 3.4. It shows that capacities Tω,Tω′T_{\omega},T_{\omega^{\prime}} are comparable if ω,ω′\omega,\omega^{\prime} are both Kähler. Further they enjoy nice invariance properties.

Proposition 3.9.

1) For all Borel subsets K′⊂K⊂XK^{\prime}\subset K\subset X, Tω​(K′)≤Tω​(K)≤Tω​(X)=1T_{\omega}(K^{\prime})\leq T_{\omega}(K)\leq T_{\omega}(X)=1.

2) If ω1≤ω2\omega_{1}\leq\omega_{2} then Tω1​(⋅)≥Tω2​(⋅)T_{\omega_{1}}(\cdot)\geq T_{\omega_{2}}(\cdot). Forall A>0A>0, TA​ω​(⋅)=[Tω​(⋅)]AT_{A\omega}(\cdot)=[T_{\omega}(\cdot)]^{A}. In particular if ω\omega and ω′\omega^{\prime} are both Kähler then there exists C≥1C\geq 1 such that

[Tω​(⋅)]C≤Tω′​(⋅)≤[Tω​(⋅)]1/C.[T_{\omega}(\cdot)]^{C}\leq T_{\omega^{\prime}}(\cdot)\leq[T_{\omega}(\cdot)]^{1/C}.

3) If ω′=ω+d​dc​χ\omega^{\prime}=\omega+dd^{c}\chi then

1C​Tω​(⋅)≤Tω′​(⋅)≤C⋅Tω​(⋅),\frac{1}{C}T_{\omega}(\cdot)\leq T_{\omega^{\prime}}(\cdot)\leq C\cdot T_{\omega}(\cdot),

where C=exp⁡(supXχ−infXχ)≥1C=\exp(\sup_{X}\chi-\inf_{X}\chi)\geq 1.

4) If f:X→Xf:X\rightarrow X is a holomorphic map then Tf∗​ω​(⋅)≤Tω∘f⁡(⋅)T_{f^{*}\omega}(\cdot)\leq T_{\omega}\circ f(\cdot). In particular if ff is a ω\omega-isometry then Tω∘f=TωT_{\omega}\circ f=T_{\omega}.

Remark 3.10.

Following Zeriahi [40] one can prove that for all α<2/ν⁡(X,ω)\alpha<2/\nu(X,\omega) there exists Cα>0C_{\alpha}>0 such that

Volω​(⋅)≤Cα​Tω​(⋅)α,\text{Vol}_{\omega}(\cdot)\leq C_{\alpha}T_{\omega}(\cdot)^{\alpha},

where ν(X,ω)=sup{ν(φ,x)/φ∈PSH(X,ω),x∈X}\nu(X,\omega)=\sup\{\nu(\varphi,x)\,/\,\varphi\in PSH(X,\omega),x\in X\} and ν⁡(φ,x)\nu(\varphi,x) denotes the Lelong number of φ\varphi at point xx. In particular it follows from proposition 3.8 that ∀φ∈P​S​H​(X,ω)\forall\varphi\in PSH(X,\omega) with supXφ=0\sup_{X}\varphi=0,

Volω​(φ<−t)≤Cα​exp⁡(−α​t),∀t∈ℝ.\text{Vol}_{\omega}(\varphi<-t)\leq C_{\alpha}\exp(-\alpha t),\;\forall t\in\mathbb{R}.

Such inequalities are quite useful in complex dynamics [20],[22] and in the study of the complex Monge-Ampère operator [24], [28].

Example 3.11.

Assume X=ℂ​ℙnX=\mathbb{C}\mathbb{P}^{n}, ω\omega is the Fubini-Study Kähler form and BRB_{R} is the euclidean ball centered at the origin and of radius RR in a chart ℂn⊂ℂ​ℙn\mathbb{C}^{n}\subset\mathbb{C}\mathbb{P}^{n}. We have explicitly computed the extremal function in this case (example 3.5). This yields

Tω​(BR)=R1+R2.T_{\omega}(B_{R})=\frac{R}{\sqrt{1+R^{2}}}.

Observe that Tω​(BR)∼RT_{\omega}(B_{R})\sim R as R→0R\rightarrow 0. This shows the optimality of the rate of decreasing in proposition 3.8.

The capacity TωT_{\omega} in example 3.11 has to be related to the capacity T𝔹nT_{\mathbb{B}^{n}} which measures compact subsets of the unit ball 𝔹n\mathbb{B}^{n} of ℂn\mathbb{C}^{n}. It is defined as follows: given KK a Borel subset of ℂn\mathbb{C}^{n}, T𝔹n(K):=exp(−sup𝔹nLK)T_{\mathbb{B}^{n}}(K):=\exp(-\sup_{\mathbb{B}^{n}}L_{K}), where

LK(z)=sup{v(z)/v∈ℒ(ℂn),supKv≤0}L_{K}(z)=\sup\{v(z)\,/\,v\in{\mathcal{L}}(\mathbb{C}^{n}),\;\sup_{K}v\leq 0\}

is the Siciak’s extremal function of KK and ℒ⁡(ℂn){\mathcal{L}}(\mathbb{C}^{n}) denotes the Lelong class of psh functions with logarithmic growth in ℂn\mathbb{C}^{n} (see example 1.2). Let ω=ωF​S\omega=\omega_{FS} denote the Fubini-Study Kähler form on ℂ​ℙn\mathbb{C}\mathbb{P}^{n}. One easily checks that

VK,ω−log⁡2≤LK−12​log⁡[1+|z|2]≤VK,ω​ in ​ℂn.V_{K,\omega}-\log\sqrt{2}\leq L_{K}-\frac{1}{2}\log[1+|z|^{2}]\leq V_{K,\omega}\text{ in }\mathbb{C}^{n}.

We infer straightforwardly sup𝔹nLK≤log⁡2+supℂ​ℙnVK,ω\sup_{\mathbb{B}^{n}}L_{K}\leq\log\sqrt{2}+\sup_{\mathbb{C}\mathbb{P}^{n}}V_{K,\omega} hence T𝔹n(K)≥2−1/2Tω(K)T_{\mathbb{B}^{n}}(K)\geq 2^{-1/2}T_{\omega}(K). We also have a reverse inequality. Indeed ∀φ∈P​S​H​(ℂ​ℙn,ω)\forall\varphi\in PSH(\mathbb{C}\mathbb{P}^{n},\omega), supℂ​ℙnφ≤sup𝔹nφ+C1\sup_{\mathbb{C}\mathbb{P}^{n}}\varphi\leq\sup_{\mathbb{B}^{n}}\varphi+C_{1}, where C1=supℂ​ℙnV𝔹n,ω=log⁡2C_{1}=\sup_{\mathbb{C}\mathbb{P}^{n}}V_{\mathbb{B}^{n},\omega}=\log\sqrt{2}. Therefore

supℂ​ℙnVK,ω≤sup𝔹nVK,ω+log⁡2≤sup𝔹nLK+log⁡2,\sup_{\mathbb{C}\mathbb{P}^{n}}V_{K,\omega}\leq\sup_{\mathbb{B}^{n}}V_{K,\omega}+\log\sqrt{2}\leq\sup_{\mathbb{B}^{n}}L_{K}+\log 2,

which yields

12​Tω​(K)≤T𝔹n​(K)≤2​Tω​(K).\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}T_{\omega}(K)\leq T_{\mathbb{B}^{n}}(K)\leq 2T_{\omega}(K).
Example 3.12.

Assume again X=ℂ​ℙnX=\mathbb{C}\mathbb{P}^{n} and ω\omega is the Fubini-Study Kähler form. Consider the totally real subspace ℝ​ℙn\mathbb{R}\mathbb{P}^{n} of points with real coordinates (the closure of ℝn⊂ℂn\mathbb{R}^{n}\subset\mathbb{C}^{n} in ℂ​ℙn\mathbb{C}\mathbb{P}^{n}). Then

12​(1+2)≤Tω​(ℝ​ℙn)≤1.\frac{1}{2(1+\sqrt{2})}\leq T_{\omega}(\mathbb{R}\mathbb{P}^{n})\leq 1.

Indeed set Bℝn:=ℝn∩𝔹nB_{\mathbb{R}^{n}}:=\mathbb{R}^{n}\cap\mathbb{B}^{n}. It follows from the discussion above that

Tω​(ℝ​ℙn)≥12​T𝔹n​(𝔹ℝn).T_{\omega}(\mathbb{R}\mathbb{P}^{n})\geq\frac{1}{2}T_{\mathbb{B}^{n}}(\mathbb{B}_{\mathbb{R}^{n}}).

Now there is an explicit formula for LBℝn∗L_{B_{\mathbb{R}^{n}}}^{*} (Lundin’s formula, see [27]),

LBℝn∗(z)=sup{log+|h(<z,ξ>)|/||ξ||=1},z∈ℂn,L_{B_{\mathbb{R}^{n}}}^{*}(z)=\sup\{\log^{+}|h(<z,\xi>)|\,/||\xi||=1\},\;z\in\mathbb{C}^{n},

where h⁡(ζ)=ζ+ζ2−1h(\zeta)=\zeta+\sqrt{\zeta^{2}-1}. A simple computation yields |h⁡(ζ)|≤log⁡[|z|+|z|2+1]|h(\zeta)|\leq\log[|z|+\sqrt{|z|^{2}+1}] for ζ=<z,ξ>\zeta=<z,\xi> with ‖ξ‖=1||\xi||=1. We infer

L𝔹ℝn​(z)≤log⁡[|z|+|z|2+1]≤log⁡[1+2]​ in ​𝔹n,L_{\mathbb{B}_{\mathbb{R}^{n}}}(z)\leq\log\left[|z|+\sqrt{|z|^{2}+1}\right]\leq\log[1+\sqrt{2}]\;\text{ in }\mathbb{B}^{n},

which yields the desired inequality.

Observe that the minorant is independent of the dimension nn. This has been used recently in complex dynamics by Dinh and Sibony [18].

Remark 3.13.

It follows from proposition 3.6 that TωT_{\omega} is a generalized capacity in the sense of Choquet which is outer regular.

Original mathematics by the credited authors. Source-backed reader collection; mathematical self-containment is not assessed.